Early versus delayed feeding after therapeutic endoscopic procedures: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Over-the-scope clip for closure of persistent gastrocutaneous fistula after gastrostomy tube removal: a multicenter pediatric experience

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is commonly used for enteral nutritional access, but gastrocutaneous fistulae (GCF) may persist after tube removal, posing clinical challenges. The use of endoscopic closure devices, including over-the-scope clips (OTSC), has shown promise in managing non-healing fistulae, although data in the pediatric population are limited.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter study analyzed pediatric patients who underwent GCF closure following gastrostomy tube removal. Data from seven centers across multiple countries were collected, including patient demographics, procedural details, complications, and outcomes. Closure techniques were compared between OTSC and surgical closure.

RESULTS

Of 67 pediatric patients included, 21 underwent OTSC closure and 46 had surgical closure. Surgical closure demonstrated a higher success rate (100%) compared to OTSC closure (61.9%, P < 0.001). While procedural duration was shorter for OTSC closure (25 vs. 40 min, P = 0.002), complications, and scar quality were comparable between techniques. A subsequent sub-analysis did not reveal differences based on center experience.

CONCLUSION

OTSC closure is feasible and safe in pediatric patients, but surgical closure remains superior in achieving sustained GCF closure, although OTSC offers benefits, such as shorter procedural duration, potentially reducing the duration of general anesthesia exposure. Non-operative approaches, including OTSC, may be a valuable alternative to surgical closure.

Early feeding reduces length of hospital stay in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: A large multicentre cohort study

AIM

No studies have compared the clinical outcomes of early and delayed feeding in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB). This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of early feeding in a nationwide cohort of patients with ALGIB in whom haemostasis was achieved.

METHODS

We reviewed data for 5910 patients with ALGIB in whom haemostasis was achieved and feeding was resumed within 3 days after colonoscopy at 49 hospitals across Japan (CODE BLUE-J Study). Patients were divided into an early feeding group (≤1 day, n = 3324) and a delayed feeding group (2-3 days, n = 2586). Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups by propensity matching analysis of 1508 pairs.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the early and delayed feeding groups in the rebleeding rate within 7 days after colonoscopy (9.4% vs. 8.0%; p = 0.196) or in the rebleeding rate within 30 days (11.4% vs. 11.5%; p = 0.909). There was also no significant between-group difference in the need for interventional radiology or surgery or in mortality. However, the median length of hospital stay after colonoscopy was significantly shorter in the early feeding group (5 vs. 7 days; p < 0.001). These results were unchanged when subgroups of presumptive and definitive colonic diverticular bleeding were compared.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this nationwide study suggest that early feeding after haemostasis can shorten the hospital stay in patients with ALGIB without increasing the risk of rebleeding.

Early vs delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition in hospitalized patients: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials

We conducted an umbrella review to summarize the existing evidence on the effect of early enteral nutrition (EEN) compared with other approaches, including delayed enteral nutrition (DEN), parenteral nutrition (PN), and oral feeding (OF) on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. We performed a systematic search up to December 2021, in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science. We included systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SRMAs) of randomized trials investigating EEN compared with DEN, PN, or OF for any clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. We used "A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR2) and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for assessing the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and their included trial, respectively. The certainty of the evidence was rated using the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. We included 45 eligible SRMAs contributing with a total of 103 randomized controlled trials. The overall meta-analyses showed that patients who received EEN had statistically significant beneficial effects on most outcomes compared with any control (ie, DEN, PN, or OF), including mortality, sepsis, overall complications, infection complications, multiorgan failure, anastomotic leakage, length of hospital stay, time to flatus, and serum albumin levels. No statistically significant beneficial effects were found for risk of pneumonia, noninfectious complications, vomiting, wound infection, as well as number of days of ventilation, intensive care unit days, serum protein, and pre-serum albumin levels. Our results indicate that EEN may be preferred over DEN, PN, and OF because of the beneficial effects on many clinical outcomes.